2021 CO 53
Colo.2021Background
- Defendant Jaylen Rainey sexually assaulted his girlfriend’s 12-year-old daughter; charged with sexual assault on a child (SAOC) but pled guilty to child abuse (class 4, non‑sex offense) and attempted SAOC (class 5, sex‑related offense).
- Under the plea, the district court imposed six years in prison for child abuse followed consecutively by ten years of Sex Offender Intensive Supervised Probation (SOISP) for the attempted SAOC sentence.
- After completing prison and beginning SOISP, Rainey moved under Crim. P. 35(a) to declare the consecutive prison‑probation sentence illegal based on Allman v. People (which generally bars imposing prison for some counts and probation for others in a multi‑count case). The district court agreed and ordered resentencing.
- The People sought Colorado Supreme Court original relief (C.A.R. 21), arguing Allman’s rule should not apply where probation is imposed under the Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act (SOLSA) as SOISP, even when the SOISP term is determinate for a sex‑related offense.
- The Supreme Court exercised original jurisdiction, held that Allman does not bar a prison sentence for a non‑sex offense followed by SOISP for another offense that falls within SOLSA (whether indeterminate or determinate), and concluded Rainey’s consecutive prison‑SOISP sentences were legal. The Court remanded for proceedings consistent with that ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Rainey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Allman’s prison‑vs‑probation prohibition bars a consecutive prison sentence for a non‑sex offense followed by SOISP for a sex‑related offense | Allman does not apply where the probationary term is SOISP under SOLSA; legislative history and Manaois/Keen support an exception | Allman prohibits any split prison/probation sentence in a multi‑count case; consecutive prison + SOISP is illegal | Court: Allman does not apply to SOISP sentences under SOLSA (determinate or indeterminate); sentences are lawful |
| Whether the Supreme Court should exercise original jurisdiction (C.A.R. 21) | Immediate relief required because resentencing would alter lawful original sentence, no adequate appellate remedy, and issue is recurring/publicly important | Implicitly argued against relieving the government’s inability to reinstate original sentence if resentencing occurred | Court exercised original jurisdiction due to inadequate appellate remedy and significant public importance |
| Whether the district court erred by declaring the sentence illegal and ordering resentencing | The district court erred; original consecutive prison + SOISP sentence was authorized | Argued sentence was illegal under Allman and plea/guilty plea was therefore invalid | Court: district court erred; rule to show cause made absolute; remand for proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Allman v. People, 451 P.3d 826 (Colo. 2019) (establishes general rule barring prison for some counts and probation for others in multi‑count cases)
- People v. Ehlebracht, 480 P.3d 727 (Colo. App. 2020) (court of appeals declined to apply Allman where probationary sentence was imposed under SOLSA/SOISP)
- People v. Lucy, 467 P.3d 332 (Colo. 2020) (standards for exercising original jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21)
- People v. Rosas, 459 P.3d 540 (Colo. 2020) (describes narrow scope and purposes of C.A.R. 21)